6DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 4-16 are pending. Claims 2-3 and 17-20 are cancelled.
Drawings
The requirement to furnish drawings appears to be prohibited in this application since this is a 371 and the drawings were approved for examination in the International Phase. See MPEP 1893.03(f) which states that “The USPTO may not impose drawing requirements during the examination of a national stage application beyond those imposed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (e.g., PCT Rule 11).”
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn consistent with USPTO procedure pertaining to a PCT national stage application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments regarding the drawing objections are moot; the objections to the drawings are withdrawn as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of:
Tucker et al. (US 2013/0213419 A1),
Ivri (US 2012/0012665 A1),
Karles et al. (US 2018/0352857 A1),
Capuano et al. (US 2014/144453 A1),
UHLIG’s CORRISION HANDBOOK (Uhlig), Third Edition, 2011, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470872864,
Aherrera et al., “The association of e-cigarette use with exposure to nickel and chromium: A preliminary study of non-invasive biomarkers” (Aherrera), 8/21/2017, Environmental Research, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935117308642?via=ihub,
Hess et al., “E-cigarettes as a source of toxic and potentially carcinogenic metals” (Hess), 10/28/2016, Environmental Research, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116306995,
Olmedo et al., “Metal Concentrations in e-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils” (Olmedo), Environmental Health Perspectives, 02/21/2018, available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6066345/pdf/EHP2175.pdf,
Dong et al., “Heating Coil Corrosion by E-Liquid Containing Nicotine Lactate Salt and In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Nickel Leachate in E-Liquid and E-Cigarette Aerosol (Dong), Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2025, available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5c00178?ref=article_openPDF.
Tucker discloses a base device that meets the structural limitations presented in the claims. Ivri teaches that different types of corrosion were known to occur in aerosol generating devices, including galvanic corrosion and corrosion due to acidic (corrosive) liquid substrates that are aerosolized, and techniques to minimize galvanic corrosion. Capuano teaches galvanic corrosion was known to occur in aerosol generating devices and teaches a technique to minimize this type of corrosion. Karles teaches a technique to minimize all types of corrosion in aerosol devices. Uhlig teaches principles of corrosion and corrosion mitigation, including galvanic corrosion and corrosion involving metals including nickel. Aherrera teaches that metals present in the aerosol generating liquid will expose a user to those metals, suggests that the metals present in an aerosol generating device may contaminate the aerosol generating liquid, and recommends FDA regulation of aerosol generating devices. Hess teaches that metals including nickel were found in the liquids to be aerosolized from a range of cartridges that were purchased at retail outlets, and confirms that metals found in the cartridges are toxic. Olmedo teaches that e-cigarettes are a potential source of exposure to toxic metals and to metals that are toxic when inhaled, as well as the concentrations are markedly higher in the aerosol and tank samples than the dispensers, concluding that the most likely source of metals is the heating coil, further suggesting that other parts of the device may also contribute.
Applicant has argued that the broad teachings of references in prior rejections used to show design principles to avoid galvanic corrosion do not teach the restricting the standard electropotential values to within the claimed mV ranges. Ivri teaches using materials with similar (or identical) galvanic potentials, to reduce the galvanic corrosion in components. The suggestion to use components with identical galvanic potentials is within the claimed range (considered to explicitly disclose using exposed metal surfaces having a 0 mV difference). The suggestion to use similar galvanic potentials, to minimize galvanic potentials is understood to teach that materials having a range of galvanic potentials may be used, limited by the galvanic corrosion based on the range of potentials. This is understood to encompass the claimed range, because the range of similar galvanic potentials is based on an identical rational, which is the minimization of galvanic corrosion.
Applicant has argued that the result, understood to be a lack of galvanic corrosion between metal surfaces that may come into contact with an electrically conductive liquid, where the metal surfaces were chosen such that galvanic corrosion would be minimized is unexpected. This is not persuasive.
Selecting materials according to known principles to avoid known types of corrosion, and then avoiding that corrosion is an expected result of appropriate engineering design. The corrosion experienced by the inventors was expected because they did not consider electrochemical corrosion and appear to have created a strong galvanic cell that caused galvanic corrosion to occur. Applicant argues that after investigating the quality issues resulting from that design, their new design properly accounted for galvanic corrosion, with the result that this type of corrosion was eliminated or at least minimized, and the design that minimized galvanic corrosion is inventive. Examiner asserts instead that this is considered non-inventive engineering practice.
Tucker discloses that the claimed arrangement of parts was known. Ivri teaches acidic corrosion and galvanic corrosion are concerns in aerosol generating devices comprising metal surfaces, as well as using materials with identical or at least similar galvanic potentials will reduce galvanic corrosion. Capuano teaches galvanic corrosion is a concern in aerosol generating devices and teaches that plating metal to have the same contact surfaces will reduce galvanic corrosion. Karles teaches that metal surfaces should be covered with a coating to minimize contact with the liquids in the devices, to reduce corrosion. Aherrara, Hess, and Olmedo show that dissolved metals from devices migrate into the solutions stored in the device, the metals are hazardous to human health, and the metals are present in aerosols produced from the devices, for a variety of cartridges that store e-liquids and where apparently appropriate design measures are not incorporated into devices to prevent the metals from migrating into the solutions stored in the cartridges. Examiner asserts that the lack of appropriate design consideration to prevent the dissolution of metals into retail cartridge aerosol solution was due to a lack of regulation and likely cost, but that such a design is obvious in light of the references.
Dong et al. “Heating Coil Corrosion by E‑Liquid Containing Nicotine Lactate Salt and In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Nickel Leachate in E‑Liquid and E‑Cigarette Aerosol” Chemical Research in Toxicology 2025, (Dong), is an evidentiary reference, tends to show the type of electrically conductive liquid is demonstrated as having a significant impact on corrosion of nickel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for selecting metals having potential differences that tend to reduce galvanic corrosion, does not reasonably provide enablement for limiting all metal dissolution into the electrically conductive aerosolizable material in a range of 0-20% during the claimed storage conditions because the dissolved metal content will depend on more than galvanic corrosion. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.
MPEP 2164 The Enablement Requirement.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. See also In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
MPEP 2164.01 Test of Enablement.
In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Supreme Court, held that claims drawn to a genus of monoclonal antibodies, which were functionally claimed by their ability to bind to a specific protein, PCSK9, were invalid due to lack of enablement. The claims at issue were functional, in that they defined the genus by its function (the ability to bind to specific residues of PCSK9) as opposed to reciting a specific structure (the amino acid sequence of the antibodies in the genus). The Supreme Court concluded that the patents at issue failed to adequately enable the full scope of the genus of antibodies that performed the function of binding to specific amino acid residues on PCSK9 and blocking the binding of PCSK9 to a particular cholesterol receptor, LDLR.
The Court clarified that the specification does not always need to "describe with particularity how to make and use every single embodiment within a claimed class." Id. at 610-11. However, "[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class….The more one claims, the more one must enable." Id.
Id.
In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue."
MPEP 2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors
In order to determine whether the scope of the claims is enabled, the claims are evaluated against the Wands factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required to practice the full scope of the invention. MPEP 2164.01(a).
These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims;
Regarding the breadth of the claims, the cartomizer is largely defined based on the based on the functional limitation “wherein a change in dissolved metal content of the electrically conductive aerosolizable material after storage of the cartomizer for about 1 to about 8 weeks at about 40 C is between 0 and about 20%”.The claims further require an electrically conductive aerosolizable material, two exposed and/or exposable metal surfaces such that a contact junction is formed by the electrically conductive is considered broad, because the other limitations are not defined in a way to inherently produce the functional result. Any electrically conductive aerosolizable material may be selected having any pH and any composition, any metal types may be selected having any geometry, surface area.
The nature of the invention;
The nature of the invention is a cartomizer for use in an aerosol provision system, where the cartomizer is largely defined based on the change in dissolved metal content in an electrically conductive material after storage for 1-8 weeks at about 40 C, where the change is between 0-20%.
The state of the prior art;
The state of the art recognized both galvanic and ordinary corrosion occurs in aerosol generating devices, that metals dissolve or leach into liquid substrates that are used to produce an aerosol in these devices, and that the metals are harmful to human health. The state of the art does not disclose the particular effect of selections regarding metals, metal geometry, relative metal surface areas, and electrically conductive aerosolizable material in terms of the percent change of dissolved metal content in storage at the claimed conditions.
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of ordinary skill in the art is understood to be a person with knowledge and understanding in the design of cartomizers for aerosol generating devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to know and understand that galvanic corrosion and ordinary corrosion may both be present in cartomizers that have exposed or exposable metals in fluid contact with electrically conductive aerosolizable materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected that metal dissolving into an electrically conductive aerosolizable material that was then aerosolized could be inhaled by a user, and would understand that this would be a health risk to that user.
The level of predictability in the art;
The likelihood of corrosion (metal dissolving) into an electrically conductive aerosolizable material was well understood, but the extent of that dissolution at the stated storage conditions was not.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The direction of the inventor is almost entirely regarding galvanic corrosion, and with respect to galvanic corrosion is limited to the selection of the metals based on their relative electric potentials. The Specification does not address ordinary corrosion, nor the effects of metal type, metal geometry, relative metal surface areas, and the electrically conductive aerosolizable material on metal dissolution into the electrically conductive aerosolizable material.
The existence of working examples;
The Specification provides no working examples. The Specification does provide Examples starting at the bottom of page 23, and in particular Example 3 includes dissolved metal content testing, pg 25-26. The testing only lasted for a maximum of 28 days, ([pg 26 lines 12-13]). The increase in dissolved metal content is not shown in the Specification or the Figures. The Figures show the amount of each dissolved metal, normalized against the maximum amount of metal for each test, ([pg 26 lines 18-21]). There doesn’t appear to be a way to identify the change in the total amount of dissolved metal over the claimed time period for any example provided.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Experimentation would be required in every case, to determine if the functional limitation was met.
The following findings are made: The claims recite a functional limitation, where the present Specification does not provide adequate guidance for the selection of various aspects of the cartomizer design to meet that limitation. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in virtually limitless experimentation to determine the full scope of the claimed invention. Because of the lack of direction as to the design of the cartomizers that meet the functional limitation, the claimed invention is found to be not enabled across the full scope of the claims by the present Specification, and thus these claims are found indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al. (US 2013/0213419 A1), Bellinger (US 2015/0359263 A1), Angell et al. (WO 2019/038522 A1), Ivri (US 2012/0012665 A1) and evidentiary references Hess et al., “E-cigarettes as a source of toxic and potentially carcinogenic metals” (Hess), 10/28/2016, Environmental Research, Aherrera et al., “The association of e-cigarette use with exposure to nickel and chromium: A preliminary study of non-invasive biomarkers” (Aherrera), 8/21/2017, Environmental Research.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 16, Tucker discloses an aerosol provision system, ([0002]).
Tucker discloses liquid supply ref 22 meeting the limitation of a reservoir that contains an aerosolizable liquid, ([0052] reasonably expected to meet the limitation of being electrically conductive aerosolizable material because of the materials it comprises such as nicotine, where commonly nicotine is added to e-liquids in the form of nicotine salt), wherein the one or more metal components are part of an aerosol generating element, ([0030] disclosing a planar metal ribbon wrapped around a wick, [0031] with metal wires to conduct power to the resistive wire heater, and a post to improve conduction across the width of the metal ribbon heater). The aerosol generating element is considered to be integrated with the reservoir by virtue of the wick providing a fluid connection for the liquid in the reservoir to the heater and contact junctions are downstream of the reservoir and the aerosol generating element, see annotated Fig 8 and 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The exposed and/or exposable surfaces of the one or more metal components are capable of simultaneously being in contact with the electrically conductive aerosol generating material (the liquid from the reservoir) because the liquid is in fluid from the reservoir is in fluid communication with the wick, flows to the heater, and is capable of dripping along the heater to the wires over the post connections.
Tucker does not disclose selecting the exposed or exposable surfaces of the one or more metal components to have a standard electrode potential difference from 0 mV to about 35 mV.
Bellinger teaches a similar electronic vaporizer that includes a heating element for heating fluid to produce a vapor, ([0006]), and thus is considered within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Bellinger teaches using a pure nickel heating coil, to facilitate a heating coil that can be used to sense the temperature of the coil as well as vaporize the liquid, ([0033]). Bellinger does not teach selecting the further metal components to have a standard electrode potential difference from 0 mV to about 35 mV compared to nickel.
Angell teaches a similar vapor assembly with a liquid transport element arranged to draw source liquid from a reservoir to a heating element to generate vapor for user inhalation, ([pg 2 lines 6-10]), and is thus considered within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Angell teaches that the heater leads may comprise the same material as the resistance wire wound around the capillary wick forming the heater, or the heater leads may comprise a different material (a lower resistance material connected to the heater resistance wire wound around the capillary wick, and expressly suggests that nickel wire may be used to deliver power to the heater coil, ([pg 8 lines 26-32]). Angell does not teach selecting the metal components to have a standard electrode potential difference from 0 mV to about 35 mV compared to nickel.
Ivri teaches inventions with embodiment that include an apparatus for generating an aerosol, ([0007]), and thus is within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Ivri teaches aerosol generating apparatuses having components designed to reduce galvanic corrosion when employed to produce fine liquid droplets (understood to be aerosols), (0002]). Ivri teaches integrating exposed/exposable elements having galvanic potentials, and teaches using elements where the galvanic potential of each of the elements are the substantially equal, ([0008]), explicitly disclosing a method of improving resistance to galvanic corrosion, that galvanic corrosion increases with an increasing difference in galvanic potential (oxidation potential) between two solid materials that come in contact through a strong electrolytic solution, and that by using materials having similar (or identical) galvanic potentials reduces the level of galvanic corrosion in these components as they aerosolize a strongly electrolytic solution, ([0031]), suggesting that materials of dissimilar material will corrode and interfere with the operation of the device, but that plating one or more components with alloy, such that the exposed surfaces have the same or similar galvanic potential, corrosion will be minimized, ([0032]). Ivri also teaches that acidic corrosion and material compatibility may also be a problem, based on the potential acidic nature of the liquid in aerosol generating devices, and teaches a technique of using special alloys that are resistant to acidic corrosion, which may mitigate this type of corrosion, ([0061]).
Hess is a research paper characterizing and quantifying toxic metals in e-cigarettes, (Abstract]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Hess teaches that while e-cigarettes are commonly held to be a safer alternative to cigarettes, these devices may be a source of toxic chemical exposure for users, particularly substances with known carcinogenic properties, (Hess pg 222, 1st full paragraph]). Hess teaches that nickel is a group 1 carcinogen and has been associated with chronic bronchitis and lung cancer, (Hess [pg 223 4. Discussion 2nd paragraph]). Hess further suggests that the heating coil comes into contact with the e-liquid, and this could result in some leaching of the coil metals into the liquid, (Hess [4. Discussion pg 224 carryover paragraph]).
Aherrera is a research paper investigating the e-cigarette usage and the exposure to nickel and chromium, ([title]), and thus is within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Aherrera reports that a study found metal concentrations in the aerosol and e-liquid from tank were markedly higher that the metal concentrations in the tank and aerosol, demonstating that metals were transferred from the device to the liquid in the tank and aerosol, (Aherrera [1. Introduction pg 313 1st paragraph]). Aherrera teaches that metals present in the aerosol generating liquid will expose a user to those metals, suggests that the metals present in an aerosol generating device may contaminate the aerosol generating liquid, and recommends FDA regulation of aerosol generating devices, Aherrera [5. Conclusion pg 319 1st paragraph]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tucker according to the teachings of Bellinger, Angell, and Ivri. Bellinger teaches using pure nickel for the heating element coil. Using a pure nickel heating ribbon in Tucker would be considered simple substitution of a known material to work as a heating element material. Bellinger teaches that because the resistance of nickel increases in a known relationship to its temperature, using nickel provides the advantage of temperature sensing of the heater based on the resistance of the heater, without the need of a separate temperature sensor. Angell teaches that heater leads (understood to provide power to the heating coil) may be formed of the same material as the heater, and in particular that heating leads may be made from nickel. Ivri teaches that galvanic corrosion is a problem in electronic vaporizers, which worsens with a difference in galvanic potential, and that choosing materials with similar or identical galvanic potentials will reduce the level of galvanic corrosion in the metal components. With the obvious modification of Tucker modified according to the teachings of Bellinger, providing a ribbon of nickel metal as the heating element in Tucker, it would be further obvious to use lead wires made from nickel (known to work from Angell), to minimize any potential difference in the metals of the vaporizer to reduce galvanic corrosion, as taught by Ivri, for the obvious reason of reducing metal content in the aerosol generating liquid and aerosol, which is considered toxic as evidenced by Hess and Aherrera.
The selection of metal components is considered to reasonably meet the limitation of metals with a standard electric potential difference of from 0 mV to about 35 mV.
Regarding claim 5, modified tucker discloses the housing of claim 1.
Bellinger teaches using a pure nickel heating coil, ([0033]). that wherein the metal components in the housing are composed of a single metal or metal alloy.
Angell teaches using heating leads that are the same material as the heating coil, and that nickel wire may be used for the heating leads, ([pg 8 lines 26-32]).
Ivri teaches selecting the metal components to have identical standard electrode potentials to avoid galvanic corrosion of the metal components, ([0031]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tucker discloses the housing of claim 5, wherein the metal is selected from the group consisting of nickel, stainless steel, aluminum and titanium or wherein the metal alloy comprises nickel, stainless steel, aluminum or titanium, see the rejection of claim 5 where the metal of the heater and heater leads is nickel.
Regarding claim 7 and 14, modified Tucker discloses the housing of claim 1. Modified Tucker discloses the use of nickel as the metal for the heater and the heating leads, see the rejection of claim 5 above. The potential difference of components made from nickel is considered to reasonably meet the limitation of metals with a standard electric potential difference of from 0 mV to about 20 mV.
Regarding claim 8-9 and 15, modified Tucker discloses the housing of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive aerosolizable material is a liquid, ([0025], [0052] disclosing liquid and nicotine).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tucker discloses a cartomizer comprising the housing of claim 1, wherein the cartomizer is a closed system, ([0023] disclosing an embodiment where the cartridges are to be disposable (closed) and the second section is reusable with a new cartomizer).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al. (US 2013/0213419 A1), Bellinger (US 2015/0359263 A1), Angell et al. (WO 2019/038522 A1), Ivri (US 2012/0012665 A1), Capuano et al. (US 2014/0144453 A1), and evidentiary references Hess et al., “E-cigarettes as a source of toxic and potentially carcinogenic metals” (Hess), 10/28/2016, Environmental Research, Aherrera et al., “The association of e-cigarette use with exposure to nickel and chromium: A preliminary study of non-invasive biomarkers” (Aherrera), 8/21/2017, Environmental Research, and Engineering Design Handbook Electrical Wire and Cable, (Electrical Wire and Cable), Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Command, September 1969, Table 1-7 pg 1-22 to 1-23, AMCP 706-125.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tucker discloses the housing of claim 1. Tucker does not disclose wherein at least one metal component is a plated metal and the exposable surface of said component is the metal underneath the plating material.
Angell teaches that the heater leads (the wire supplying power to the heater) may comprise a different material (a lower-resistance material), connected to the heater resistance wire wound around the capillary wick, ([pg 8 lines 26-29]). Angell does not teach that the at least one metal component is a plated metal and the exposable surface of said component is the metal underneath the plating material.
Capuano teaches a similar aerosol provision system, ([0018]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Capuano teaches that corrosion may result from wires connecting the battery to the cartridge in part because the e-liquid may be reactive with certain metals, and contamination of the e-liquid may occur during a soldering process, ([0018]). Capuano teaches that using a connection that is solderless reduces potential problems, including corrosion and contamination of the e-liquid, while improving ease of manufacturing, ([0026]). Capuano further teaches that wires may be nickel-coated copper to avoid galvanic effects caused by prolonged contact with the e-liquid and that all metal surfaces may be plated with similar metals to reduce corrosion, ([0032]).
Electrical Wire and Cable evidences that nickel wire has a conductivity of 18 percent (see row 19 pertaining to nickel and the column pertaining to conductivity, [pg 122 table 1-7]), and that nickel clad copper has a conductivity of 73%, (see row 10 pertaining to nickel clad copper and the column pertaining to conductivity, [pg 1-22 table 1-7]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Tucker based on the teachings of Angell and Capuano, as evidenced by Electrical Wire and Cable to have nickel clad copper wire (plated nickel over copper) as the wire used for the heater leads instead of wire consisting of nickel. Angel suggests that a wire with a lower resistivity may be used for the heater leads. Electrical Wire and Cable evidences that nickel clad copper wire has superior conductivity compared to nickel wire (understood to have a lower resistance than nickel wire). Capuano teaches that using nickel plated wire may reduce galvanic corrosion in the device, reasonably suggesting that nickel plated wire would be an acceptable choice for the heater leads in a system where galvanic corrosion of the nickel may be a concern.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al. (US 2013/0213419 A1), in view of Karles et al. (US 2018/0352857 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Tucker discloses an aerosol provision system, ([0002]).
Tucker describing a cartridge also meeting the limitation of claim 12), for use with the aerosol provision system comprising, ([0023]): Tucker discloses liquid supply ref 22 meeting the limitation of a reservoir that contains an aerosolizable liquid, ([0052] reasonably expected to meet the limitation of being electrically conductive aerosolizable material because of the materials it comprises such as nicotine, where commonly nicotine is added to e-liquids in the form of nicotine salt), wherein the one or more metal components are part of an aerosol generating element, ([0030] disclosing a planar metal ribbon wrapped around a wick, [0031] with metal wires to conduct power to the resistive wire heater, and a post to improve conduction across the width of the metal ribbon heater), reasonably disclosing two exposed and/or exposable surfaces of one or more metal components wherein the one or more metal components are part of an aerosol generating element integrated with the reservoir, see Fig 10 depicted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
584
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 10 depicting exposed and exposable contact surfaces between the heater ribbon and wires providing power to the heater ribbon.
Tucker does not disclose a change in the electrically conductive aerosolizable material after storage of the cartomizer for about 1 to about 8 weeks at about 40 C is between about 0 and about 20%.
Karles teaches applying a coating to a metallic portion of an e-vaping device, to prevent corrosion of the metallic portion via a reaction with the pre-vaporization formula, ([0006]), and is thus considered within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Karles teaches treating surfaces of metallic portions of e-vaping devices that are typically in contact with the pre-vapor formulation to prevent corrosion, ([0009]). Karles teaches that the coating maybe deposited on the metallic portion by electrodeposition, electro-less deposition, or dipping, and that the coating may be formed of a mixture of silanes and resins, ([0009]). Karles teaches that the coatings may be substantially non-porous and substantially prohibit contact between the surfaces of the metallic portions and the pre-vapor formulation, and that the coatings are capable of withstanding the operating temperatures of the e-vaping device without degrading, ([0010]). Karles teaches that the metallic parts or portions of the device may be separately treated or the metal surfaces may be coated after assembly of at least a part of the device, ([0011]-[0012]). Karles teaches that applying this technique provides several advantages including corrosion resistance, improved shelf life, and a decreased or substantially prevented metal dissolution of metallic portions of the e-vaping device, ([0013]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tucker according to the teachings of Karles. Tucker discloses a base device with metallic surfaces exposed to an electrically conductive aerosolizable material. Karles recognized that metallic surfaces exposed to such an environment may suffer corrosion, and teaches a method of coating the metallic surfaces such that the exposable surfaces of the metal components never come into contact with the electrically conductive aerosolizable material. Because the metal surfaces never come into contact with the electrically conductive aerosolizable material, the functional limitation requiring a change in the electrically conductive aerosolizable material after storage of the cartomizer for about 1 to about 8 weeks at about 40 C is between about 0 and about 20% is considered met. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the metal surfaces of Tucker to have the coating of Karles for the advantages taught by Karles, which include improved shelf life and a reduction of metal dissolution into the electrically conductive aerosolizable material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
UHLIG’s CORRISION HANDBOOK (Uhlig Chapter 6), Third Edition, 2011, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470872864, disclosing designing techniques to prevent corrosion; Olmedo et al., “Metal Concentrations in e-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils” (Olmedo), Environmental Health Perspectives, 02/21/2018, available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6066345/pdf/EHP2175.pdf, disclosing that metal leaches from metallic coils into the aerosol generating liquid and may be inhaled when the liquid is aerosolized and inhaled; and
Dong et al. “Heating Coil Corrosion by E‑Liquid Containing Nicotine Lactate Salt and In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Nickel Leachate in E‑Liquid and E‑Cigarette Aerosol” Chemical Research in Toxicology 2025, (Dong), is an evidentiary reference, tends to show the type of electrically conductive liquid is demonstrated as having a significant impact on corrosion of nickel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights